Is it dedicated to being a music player?

Whoops. I mean, Trademark. That's what I get for not using Preview.

I have no idea how to log into ChatPGT and even less interest in giving it my details to sell. I don't see any reason to use it.

As in previous decades, the option exists of composing your own code, asserting that it is your own composition, making that declaration and submitting it as code for an Open Source project under those terms. If it's your composition, you're OK ; if you're a thieving liar (viz, someone who uses AI and claims it as their own work), then you've every chance of being proved wrong, in public, in front of a jury of your peers. Which for most is more daunting than being proved wrong in a court of law.

The possibility exists of your code duplicating someone else's. It did in 1980, and it does today. But obviously, your own work exists in your own archives in the context of whatever else you've been doing, and your genuine coincidence will most likely show in your wider context. If you've a reputation worth protecting. But if you're a thieving liar ... well, your professional reputation is going to go down the pan to the septic tank where it will stay.

Your choice. It's your reputation to destroy. If you're willing to risk it by using AI to generate strings which you then represent as your own work, well, it's your reputation.

In one of those attacks of hilarious coincidence the internet is prone too, while opening several tabs to reply to these Slashdot comment, another tab was following a different (vague) interest, and exposed a "faker" of a content writer :

Theyâ(TM)re very easy to apply, requiring only a thorough degreasing before application. For fun I compared the finish from two Brownellâ(TM)s cold bluing products: You did not provide any text to rewrite. Please provide the text to proceed. Dicropan T-4

(from this page ; no emphasis or modification - that's what he posted). Obviously, that is a source that inspires zero confidence. The "author" has shat all over any carefully curated reputation he (or his employers) had in the field. Typical result of using AI - severe footshot. If he has a Boss, this so-called "writer" will be getting his P-45.

Prove that whatever AI you used wrote that, as opposed to copying it from elsewhere. Which seems to be precisely the point you want to emphasise, but you're missing the point of proving it. I assert that your example is actually copied from somewhere. Prove me wrong.

That's "prove" in the mathematical sense - not the limp version of the word that lawyers use.

I can't say I understand the musical analogy, but for any particular language you should be able to work out the number of possible programmes for a set code length. Elimination of duplicates would be the hardest bit, but the branching of syntax diagrams quickly gets to pretty large numbers of possible programmes. "Large" as in, combinatorial numbers rather than science's small number exponential notation.

Regardless of which, a significant part of your job as code-submitter remains to prove that the code you claim responsibility for is unique, that you own the copyright to it, and to assign the project you're submitting it to. Same as it was when Richard Stallman coded with a hammer, chisel and slabs of granite. Whether you use Vi or Alt-Ctrl-SysReq-Emacs doesn't matter, but you retain responsibility for the code and it's license.

Derivative works contain recognizably copied elements. There are many uses which don't meet that standard. Just looking like the thing doesn't suit, either, it has to be obviously directly copied (though possibly manipulated) and not recreated.

The concept of copyleft was literally created because open source wasn't open enough for its creator.

"Open" meant "documented and interoperable" in UNIXland for many years. Open Source's origins are in the security community's use of the same phrase to mean an intelligence source anyone could get information from. The first programmable computers came from military efforts, and the bulk of computers were military until they became inexpensive, so this relationship was well-established and fundamental, therefore influential.

BSD and MIT are absolutely, positively, 100% Open Source licenses. They (and other code sharing licenses) were referred to as such before Christine Petersen ever claimed to have invented the phrase, which is why the OSI doesn't have the right to define it and also why their lawyers told them that they couldn't copyright it, and also why you're wrong.

It helps if you know what Open Source means. It means you can see the source.

If you can get access to the training data and the code that turns it into a model, it's open source regardless of what you're allowed to do with it, or whether you can afford the computer time to build the model from the data. If you can't see the sources, then it's not open source. Not even every definition of Free Software ensures that you will actually be able to use the code in question. That's why there is a GPLv3, with an anti-Tivoization clause; GPLv2 wasn't Free enough. But even the GPLv3 doesn't mandate that you be able to make meaningful use of the code for reasons beyond artificial restrictions, like not owning a supercluster.

I've got a work iPhone here and it pisses me off every time I try to do anything with it. I'm sure once I learn the Apple way of doing things it will make some kind of sense but I've used practically everything over the years and this is some baffling bullshit.

Pumped hydro storage is certainly a thing, but it requires a viable site etc etc.

Batteries and inverters are good enough now that battery storage is commercially viable, and it's only going to become moreso from both ends.

That's a funny way to spell eliminated.

House the homeless and they can cook on electric. It would be cheaper than what we are doing now, especially what with all the empty homes and office buildings. In fact not filling those empty homes is actually destroying value since unoccupied homes degrade even if not broken into and stripped for copper.

You would have to be an idiot to use nuclear for that when you can get more capacity for less money with other solutions. Since the resulting fuel is cheap and easy to store, intermittency of supply is a non-issue.

Wind is cheap enough to overbuild to solve your capacity problems.

You do need to build more transmission lines, but you need those no matter what kind of generation you build, and no one wants any of it in their neighborhood so you always have to go long distances.

If you overbuild wind then you wind up with unused capacity, which provides incentive for new uses for intermittent power. It's not a problem at all because wind can be throttled down at will